Distinguish reporting failures from actual cryptocurrency delistings

Determine whether cryptocurrency assets that disappear from the capitalisation-ranked panel have actually delisted or have merely ceased reporting market capitalisation while remaining listed and traded, in order to establish the interpretation of measured exit hazards and delisting-related losses.

Background

The study defines an exit as an asset’s absence from the capitalisation panel in the subsequent weekly snapshot. Although a bridging rule removes single-week gaps, an asset may cease reporting a capitalisation without actually being delisted or becoming economically inactive. This distinction matters for the paper’s estimates of exit hazards, the interpretation of survival risk, and the treatment of exits as total losses in tail-risk and portfolio-return calculations.

The authors explicitly acknowledge that the available listing data do not resolve whether all observed exits represent genuine delistings. Establishing the status of these assets would require additional information, such as persistent listing records, exchange-level trading data, or other evidence of continued activity after disappearance from the capitalisation panel.

References

Relatedly, an exit in this paper is an absence from the decile panel, which a coin can trigger by ceasing to report a capitalisation while remaining listed and traded; the bridging rule of Section~\ref{sec:data} removes single-week gaps, and removing it roughly doubles measured frontier-era exit rates, but the possibility that some measured exits are reporting failures rather than delistings cannot be excluded and bears on Prediction~2 and on Table~\ref{tab:tailexit}.

— Market Efficiency in a Changing Asset Population: Mobility, Entry, and Survival over Cryptocurrency's Full History  (2610.23283 - Ballis et al., 16 Oct 2026) in Section “Robustness and limitations,” subsection “Limitations”